I have been told repeatedly that McCain is a flip-flopper and hypocrite because he was against the Bush tax cuts, but now he wants to keep them. I tell them the obvious truth that the effects of removing a tax cut are not the same as having not enacted it in the first place, and this is why McCain opposes taxes increasing from whatever the current level is.

The Democrats don't accept it. They apparently believe that if you're against the taxes at a certain level, you must always be against them at that level, no matter what route is taken to get there; that the changes between different levels of taxation are immaterial, and that only the absolute value of tax rates matters.

Recently a woman was shot in Seattle, and the bullet lodged in her leg. Presumably, she opposed being shot (I hope there's no contention on this point). But now that the bullet is in her leg, she is likely going to leave it there, because her doctors say it would do more damage to remove the bullet.

I guess that makes her a flip-flopper and hypocrite, according to the Democrats.

Or maybe they just have trouble understanding that different things are, in fact, often different.

"I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief." -- John McCain, 2001 [usnews.com]

Do you mean to imply that his good conscience would be expected to change when the bill was signed?

That is one, you know it, and anyone reading this knows it. If you can't in good conscience support something, that means you don't support it whether it has been enacted or not. You can not think of a single reason why that would ever not be the case, because there are no such reasons.

If you can't in good conscience support something, that means you don't support it whether it has been enacted or not.

So you are calling the woman who wants to keep the bullet in her leg a flip-flopper. Right-o. Seems kinda crass of you to do so, but so be it.

You can not think of a single reason why that would ever not be the case, because there are no such reasons.

Incorrect. It's quite simple: the effects of increasing taxes after having decreased them are very different from having not decreased them in the first place. An intelligent and thoughtful person will not consider those to be the same things.

The injured lady never said that she was opposed to a bullet remaining in her leg. You are pretending that she would have to make an absurd argument. It is reasonable to suspect that she has been and is in favor of her health, just as the electorate is saying they are in favor of a healthy economy.

You don't have a shred of evidence that removing the tax cuts wouldn't return us to the Clinton economy we had before they were enacted, with high growth, low inflation, and shrinking unemployment. There is p

Trying to stay focused on your original question, "Give me a single quote from McCain that ever shows him implying that he would want these tax cuts to ever be removed if they get enacted."
From Meet the Press, April 11, 2004 [msn.com]:

MR. RUSSERT: Since the Civil War, every president who has been at war has increased taxes. Should the president consider postponing his tax cut?

SEN. McCAIN: I would have--I voted against the tax cuts because of the disproportionate amount that went to the wealthy Americans. I wo

You asked about context. In the context following "I voted against the tax cuts because of the disproportionate amount that went to the wealthy Americans," the antecedent of "those tax cuts" in "I would clearly support not extending those tax cuts" are the ones he voted against.